Cases - Corporation of Birmingham v Allen
Record details
- Name
- Corporation of Birmingham v Allen
- Date
- (1877)
- Citation
- L. R. 6 Ch. Div. 284
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Easements
- Summary
-
The claimants owned a gas works and the defendants owned a colliery. The 2 pieces of land were separated laterally by an intervening piece of land that had been worked for coal and under which, consequently, there was a cavity. The effect of this cavity was that when the defendants mined their land, subsidence resulted to the land belonging to the claimants situated beyond the intervening land. The claimants sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing to mine. It was common ground that if the intermediate land had been in its natural state then the defendants' operations would have cause not damage to the claimants land. It was held that the entitlement to support was an entitlement to support from the 'neighbouring landowner', which in this context meant the owner of that portion of land which in its natural state was necessary for the support of the land in question, and nothing beyond that. The intervening land was the neighbouring land - the only reason that it did not in fact provide the required support was because it was no longer in its natural state. The claimants had no entitlement to support from land further away than this and were not granted the injunction they sought.
The liquid content of soil may contribute to its load-bearing properties. What is the position when an adjoining owner drains his or her land of water, causing the water under a neighbour's land to migrate, thereby reducing its load-bearing ability? The natural right of support mentioned above does not extend so far as to prevent an adjoining landowner from doing this (but see also Lotus Ltd v British Soda Ltd) at least in so far as percolating water is involved. This is consistent with the law that no one has a proprietary right to water percolating beneath his or her land.